As a lifelong Republican, I am so relieved to know that you have instructed the federal prosecutors working under your direction to seek only MAXIMUM penalties for these money-laundering, RICO statute violating drug addicted criminals that are aimlessly wandering the hallowed grounds of America. I remember the previous "administration" granting a PARDON to a RICO statute violator, just because he was wealthy. (His name was even "Rich" if I remember correctly). That is why I am so glad that you will be prosecuting Rush Limbaugh to the fullest extent of the law. Drug dealers should be locked up with the key thrown away, and the lawless, seedy ways in which these recalcitrants violate the spirit of America should be met with the wrath that only you can provide.

Money laundering is a crime.

So is drug possession.

So is drug dealing.

Please make sure this three time felon gets put away for life.

Anything less would only help the terrorists.

Sincerely, Wynette BanksCharleston, South C

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. --Jimi Hendrix

It is apparently abundantly documented that Rush committed a money laundering crime called, "structuring," as described by the Money Laundering Act of 1986. Since the passage of that law, banks are required to file a CTR whenever you deposit or withdraw $10,000 in cash. Banks are not supposed to discuss the law with you or give you any advise on how to evade the requirement; any attempt to "structure" your withdrawals or deposits to evade the requirement is the crime called "structuring." The federal gov't does not have to prove that you actually had involvement in any illegal enterprise; repeatedly withdrawing sums of money like $9,900 to be just under the reporting level is itself the crime of structuring.

There is no doubt that Limbaugh is guilty; he admits to making "3 or 4" withdrawals in that amount, and the bank documents actually show that he made around 30 such withdrawals. The bank cooperated in helping him evade the CTR requirements and was supposedly already fined $10 million dollars. However, under the Money Laundering Act of 1986, both Limbaugh and any bank employees who assisted him in the act of "structuring" are supposed to receive mandatory prison sentences. I no longer have the law in front of me, but if I recall correctly, the minimum is five years, no parole.

The fact that they have a papertrail of his withdrawals and all the bank records, and have had this information for two years, yet still have not arrested this scumbag, are just further proof that the law does not apply to the extremist elite.

I feel impelled to repeat -- there is NO necessity under the law to prove that Limbaugh exchanged the money for drugs, although it is clear that he did. There is no need to prove drug possession. No need to invoke RICO. The money laundering act of 1986 is all you need to put Limbaugh in jail today. But this requires a law enforcement officer who has the courage to enforce the law against a rich rightwing extremist...ain't gonna happen.

I would not be surprised to learn that Ashcroft himself was on drugs. Powell recently blurted out that "everyone" was and mentioned explicitly that his drug of choice was Ambien. This news was quickly buried under the Michael Jackson silly season stuff....

I had to deal with large sums of cash and therefore I had to spend untold time and effort to make sure I was in compliance with the Money Laundering Act of 1986 so that I could avoid structuring or any appearance of structuring. The best way is to make sure that you regularly get CTRs filed -- that you withdraw/deposit $11,000 say or anything over the $10,000 limit -- so that you can show you do not have a pattern of trying to hide your cash activity by keeping all withdrawals/deposits under $10,000. Of course, since I was not involved in an illegal activity, I really didn't care if CTRs were filed; I wanted them to be filed, as a record that I was in compliance with the law.

This is well-established law, and it has teeth. Rush's case is a slamdunk case for federal prosecutors because all they need for evidence is the paperwork showing the suspicious transactions. All financial institutions are supposed to report suspicious withdrawals on a suspicious activity report. "Suspicious" can be whatever they think it is -- I've heard of it happening for a cash transaction for as little as $3,000 if the financial institution cannot be certain of the source of the cash. It is definitely required any time a customer makes repeated transactions in the amount of $9,000 or $9,500 or (and God help you if you are this stupid) $9,900. It sounds like the federal investigators actually caught the bank first and got a list of people involved in the suspicious activity but for an unknown reason didn't proceed with prosecuting the individual customers -- very strange, since prosecutors generally love slamdunk prosecutions. My guess is that since they didn't want to be accused of unequal enforcement, they decided not to arrest anyone involved in the money laundering when they found Rush's name on the list.

I'm shocked this is getting so little play but I'm not sure why. Most people never see any great amount of cash and have no idea of the laws regarding it so they maybe don't understand the severity of the law Rush violated.

As most drug lords never handle any drugs themselves, the Money Laundering Act is the only tool for prosecuting them. In Rush's case, he has either ingested all the drugs or distributed to friends at parties or whatever...but we don't need the drug evidence because he can be more easily prosecuted under the Money Laundering Act anyway. We just need law enforcement officers and prosecutors with courage and will. And they have to be FEDERAL LEOs and prosecutors; this is a FEDERAL offense and out of the hands of the states of Florida or New York.

I don't believe anyone has the courage to enforce the law in this case. I honestly do not.